|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 224 Records
-
1989 (11) TMI 290
Issues:
Classification of "medicinal oxygen" under entry 121 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner was assessed under section 5(1) of the Act regarding the sale of "medicinal oxygen" and "nitrous oxide" for anaesthesia. The Deputy Commissioner classified the oxygen under entry 121 of the Second Schedule, which includes industrial gases like oxygen, acetylene, and nitrogen. The petitioner argued that "medicinal oxygen" is distinct from industrial oxygen due to its purification for medical use and different packaging. The common parlance interpretation rule in sales tax legislation was highlighted, emphasizing that the understanding of goods by traders and users is crucial.
The Supreme Court's precedent in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. G.S. Pai & Co. was cited, emphasizing interpreting entries based on common parlance understanding. The judgment differentiated between bullion and gold articles and clarified the interpretation of terms like "sanitary fittings." The Tribunal's decision was challenged as assuming legislative classification of "oxygen" as industrial gas, ignoring the entry's context and common understanding. The burden of proof was placed on the Revenue to bring a commodity within a taxing provision.
The Tribunal's reliance on a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision was criticized, as it was reversed by the Supreme Court. The distinction between "medicinal oxygen" and "industrial oxygen" was emphasized, questioning the practical usage and common perception of purified oxygen. Various legal citations and technical specifications were referenced to support the distinctiveness of "medicinal oxygen." The judgment concluded that "medicinal oxygen" does not fall under the category of "industrial gas" as per entry 121, and directed reassessment based on the findings.
In summary, the judgment focused on the common understanding and practical usage of goods in determining their classification under sales tax legislation. It emphasized the distinctiveness of "medicinal oxygen" from industrial oxygen and rejected the assumption that all forms of oxygen are classified as industrial gas. The decision highlighted the burden of proof on the Revenue and directed reassessment based on the distinction between "medicinal oxygen" and "industrial oxygen."
-
1989 (11) TMI 289
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "machinery" under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1978-79.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Karnataka High Court, delivered by Justice S. Rajendra Babu, pertains to the classification of door closers as machinery under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act. The assessing authority had initially classified door closers as machinery and levied tax accordingly. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that door closers did not fall under the definition of machinery as per entry 20. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the assessing authority for appropriate tax levy. The Revenue challenged this decision in revision before the High Court.
The crucial issue before the court was whether door closers could be considered machinery under the relevant entry. The court referred to dictionaries and legal precedents to interpret the term "machinery." The court cited the case of Corporation of Calcutta v. Cossipore Municipality and highlighted the Privy Council's observations on defining machinery. The court emphasized that the determination of what constitutes machinery depends on the specific facts of each case.
The court also referenced previous decisions by the Karnataka High Court, such as D.B. Bhandari v. State of Mysore and K.B. Dani v. State of Karnataka, to explain the concept of machinery as a mechanical device with organized parts performing specific functions beyond human physical capabilities. These decisions clarified that power sources, whether natural, human, or electric, do not affect the classification of an item as machinery.
In the present cases, the respondent argued that door closers should be considered hardware, not machinery, based on literature from the Indian Standards Institution. However, the court analyzed the construction and function of door closers, noting the hydraulic components and multiple materials involved in their assembly. The court concluded that door closers, designed to slow down door closing using hydraulic mechanisms, met the definition of machinery under entry 20.
The court rejected the respondent's argument that door closers were merely door hinges, emphasizing the complexity and specific function of the device. The judgment concluded that the door closers sold by the respondent qualified as machinery under the Act's provisions. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and reinstating the orders of the assessing and appellate authorities.
In summary, the Karnataka High Court determined that door closers, based on their construction and function, fell within the definition of machinery under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Act. The court's analysis relied on legal precedents and specific characteristics of the door closers to establish their classification as machinery for tax purposes.
-
1989 (11) TMI 288
Issues:
1. Validity of the "urgent notice" demanding payment of entertainment tax.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939.
3. Jurisdiction of the Entertainment Tax Officer to revise fixed tax amounts.
4. Authority of statutory bodies to unilaterally create demands without specific conferred powers.
5. Quashing of the impugned demand and the writ petition.
Analysis:
The writ petition challenged an "urgent notice" issued by the Entertainment Tax Officer demanding a payment of Rs. 13,620 from the petitioner, an exhibitor of films. The petitioner had previously entered into an agreement to pay a fixed amount of entertainment tax under the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939. The demand was based on an audit report indicating an alleged error in the fixed tax calculation, leading to a revised tax amount for a specific period. However, the Court noted that the demand was made without the contingency specified in the relevant provision of the Act for revising fixed tax amounts, rendering the demand jurisdictionally invalid.
The Court emphasized that under the Act, licensees are either liable to pay entertainment tax under section 4 or can opt for a fixed tax agreement, revisable only as per the Act's provisions. The Entertainment Tax Officer lacked the authority to demand additional payment solely based on an audit finding of an incorrect agreement. The judgment cited a previous case to support the limited circumstances under which fixed tax amounts could be revised, none of which applied in the present case. The Court highlighted that statutory authorities must act within the powers expressly granted by the Act and cannot unilaterally create demands without specific conferred authority.
In response to the argument that parties could resile from agreements due to mistakes or fraud under general law, the Court clarified that statutory authorities are bound by the powers explicitly conferred upon them by the Act. If authorities believe they have a valid cause of action, they must seek recourse through ordinary courts rather than unilaterally imposing demands. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned demand, ruling in favor of the petitioner in the writ petition and allowing it without costs. The judgment affirmed the importance of statutory authorities acting within their prescribed powers and seeking appropriate legal avenues for addressing disputes or discrepancies.
-
1989 (11) TMI 287
Whether 1,500 tents which were loaded in the railway wagons on October 14, 1968, at Jodhpur for delivery to respondent No. 5, the Commandant, C.O.D., Kanpur, under railway receipt No. 502671 were actually delivered to respondent No. 5?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The judgments and the decree of the courts below in so far as they rejected the claims regarding the price of 224 tents and interest thereon are set aside. The plaintiff-appellant's claim for the price of the said goods as well as interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum for the period from January 1, 1969, to December 1, 1971, is hereby decreed. The appeal is thus allowed with costs quantified at ₹ 4,000. The claim for interest at 6 per cent per annum for the period January 1, 1972, till date of payment of amount unpaid is allowed.
-
1989 (11) TMI 285
Whether sheep hair was an agricultural produce within the meaning of the said term as defined under section 2(a) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Sheep hair falls under the item No. 41 of the Schedule namely "wool" (oon) as contained in the English version and "oon" only as contained in the Hindi version of the Act. Sheep hair is consequently an agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act so that the various provisions therein with regard to agricultural produce are applicable to sheep hair also.
-
1989 (11) TMI 273
Issues Involved:
1. Reconstitution of the board of the company.
2. Appointment of a joint managing director.
3. Joint management of the company by the managing director and joint managing director.
4. Fresh audit of the company's accounts.
5. Validity of the annual general body meeting held on July 5, 1988.
6. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
7. Legality and validity of the decision to increase the authorized capital.
8. Appropriateness of interlocutory relief.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Reconstitution of the Board of the Company
The ninth respondent requested the reconstitution of the company's board to include representatives proportionate to the shareholding as of December 31, 1984, or alternatively, to suspend the board of directors constituted by the elections held on July 5, 1988. The board's composition and the validity of the elections were contested due to alleged illegal acts by the third respondent, leading to exclusion from management.
2. Appointment of a Joint Managing Director
The ninth respondent sought the appointment of a joint managing director to represent his interests and those of Sri R. Khemka. This request was based on the need for equitable representation in the company's executive management, reflecting their shareholding.
3. Joint Management of the Company
A direction was requested for the company's management functions to be carried out jointly by the managing director and the joint managing director. This was proposed to ensure balanced decision-making and prevent unilateral actions by the current managing director, who was accused of oppressive conduct.
4. Fresh Audit of the Company's Accounts
The ninth respondent called for a fresh audit of the company's accounts for the periods ending March 31, 1987, and March 31, 1988. This request was based on allegations of financial mismanagement and the need for transparency and accountability in the company's financial dealings.
5. Validity of the Annual General Body Meeting
The ninth respondent sought to declare the proceedings of the annual general body meeting held on July 5, 1988, as void. This was due to alleged irregularities and illegalities in the conduct of the meeting, which were claimed to have affected the fairness of the elections and the decisions taken.
6. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement
The petitioners and the ninth respondent alleged oppression and mismanagement by the third respondent and his group. They claimed that the third respondent had manipulated the shareholding pattern and excluded them from management. The court examined the material to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case and balance of convenience for interlocutory relief.
7. Legality and Validity of the Decision to Increase the Authorized Capital
The court focused on the legality and validity of the decision to increase the authorized capital and its allotment to respondents Nos. 3 to 6. The petitioners and the ninth respondent argued that the additional capital was issued to alter the shareholding pattern in favor of the third respondent without any real advantage to the company. The court examined the reasons for the additional issue, the procedure followed, and whether the company received any actual benefit.
8. Appropriateness of Interlocutory Relief
The court considered the appropriateness of granting interlocutory relief pending the decision on the company petition. The ninth respondent argued for immediate relief due to ongoing oppression and mismanagement, while the third respondent suggested proceeding with the company petition itself. The court decided to grant interlocutory relief by appointing an interim administrator to manage the company's affairs, superseding the current board of directors.
Conclusion:
The court found prima facie evidence of abuse of fiduciary power by the third respondent in issuing additional capital to alter the shareholding pattern. It appointed a retired judge as an interim administrator to manage the company's affairs, with the third respondent and another assistant administrator to assist. The court granted costs to the petitioners and the ninth respondent, to be paid by the third respondent.
-
1989 (11) TMI 272
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the transfer of shares by directors/shareholders.
2. Jurisdiction of the first respondent to prevent share transfers.
3. Allegations of mala fides in the approval of share transfers.
4. The applicability of Article 226 for disputes involving private parties.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Transfer of Shares by Directors/Shareholders:
The petitioners, who are shareholders/directors in Sree Ayyanar Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the transfer of shares to non-shareholders. The second respondent-company had obtained a loan from the first respondent, and the directors had undertaken not to transfer their shares without the first respondent's approval. Despite this, some directors/shareholders sought and received approval from the first respondent to transfer their shares to third parties. The court noted that the transfer of shares had already been effected with the first respondent's approval before the writ petitions were filed, rendering the petitions infructuous.
2. Jurisdiction of the First Respondent to Prevent Share Transfers:
The court addressed the preliminary objection that the first respondent could not be mandated to prevent share transfers. The first respondent's jurisdiction was limited to ensuring compliance with the agreement between it and the second respondent-company. If a transfer was effected without the first respondent's approval, the first respondent could claim a violation of the agreement but could not invalidate the transfer. Therefore, the court could not issue a mandamus to stop the transfer of shares.
3. Allegations of Mala Fides in the Approval of Share Transfers:
The petitioners alleged that the first respondent's approval of the share transfers was influenced by mala fides, particularly due to the influence of the third respondent. However, the court found that the affidavits lacked sufficient particulars to substantiate these claims. The court emphasized that unless it was demonstrated that the interests of the first respondent or the second respondent-company were prejudiced by the approval, no inference of mala fides could be drawn. The court also rejected the argument that the first respondent's approval released some directors from their liability under the loan agreement, noting that the first respondent's primary concern was safeguarding its interests in loan recovery.
4. The Applicability of Article 226 for Disputes Involving Private Parties:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in LIC of India v. Escorts Ltd., highlighting that State instrumentalities, when acting as shareholders, have the same rights as private shareholders. The court reiterated that Article 226 is not a forum for resolving disputes between private parties. The real dispute was between the petitioners and other shareholders, not involving any public law element that would warrant judicial review under Article 226. The petitioners' claim of a right of pre-emption based on family conventions needed to be established in an appropriate forum, not through writ petitions.
Conclusion:
Both writ petitions were dismissed with costs, as the court found no grounds to issue a mandamus to the first respondent or to entertain the petitions under Article 226. The court emphasized that the dispute was essentially a private matter between shareholders, unsuitable for resolution through writ jurisdiction.
-
1989 (11) TMI 258
Issues:
- Validity of tenancy agreements entered into by the company after commencement of winding up.
- Entitlement of the official liquidator to evict tenants and return security deposits.
- Application of section 536(2) of the Companies Act to void post-winding up transactions.
- Claim for refund of security deposits under section 65 of the Contract Act.
- Priority of security deposit refund claims compared to other creditors.
- Examination of whether security deposits were held in trust for the tenants.
- Legal precedents regarding repayment of security deposits in liquidation cases.
- Dispute over the actual payment of security deposits by the tenants.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay, delivered by Mrs. Sujata Manohar, dealt with a case involving tenancy agreements entered into by applicants with a company in liquidation. The company had leased portions of a godown to the applicants post the commencement of winding up proceedings. The official liquidator sought to avoid these transactions under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, which deems post-winding up dispositions void unless ordered otherwise by the court. The court upheld the order directing the applicants to hand over possession to the official liquidator, despite multiple appeals and review petitions.
Regarding the refund of security deposits totaling Rs. 40 lakhs, the applicants relied on section 65 of the Contract Act, arguing for restitution due to the voiding of the agreements. However, the court noted that while the applicants may have an equitable claim for refund, such claims do not receive priority over other creditors in a liquidation scenario. The court emphasized that the security deposits were not held in trust for the tenants but were treated as part of the company's funds, used for various operational purposes.
Citing legal precedents such as Rai Bahadur Seth Jessa Ram Fatehchand v. Om Narain Tankha and Maneckji Petit Mfg. Co. Ltd., the court highlighted that the existence of a trust relationship regarding security deposits depends on the terms of the agreement and factual circumstances. In this case, the lack of specific provisions indicating a trust arrangement led the court to treat the applicants as ordinary creditors in terms of refund entitlement.
Furthermore, a dispute arose regarding the actual payment of security deposits by the tenants. While the applicants claimed the payments were reflected in the company's accounts, the official liquidator raised doubts. The court directed the applicants to file their claims for deposit refund with the official liquidator for examination, with any established claims to be treated equally with other unsecured creditors.
-
1989 (11) TMI 257
Issues Involved:
1. Discretionary Relief u/s 155 of the Companies Act, 1956
2. Validity of Share Transfer
3. Allegation of Mala Fides
4. Authority of Constituted Attorney
5. Delay and Acquiescence
Summary:
1. Discretionary Relief u/s 155 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The court emphasized that the relief under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, is discretionary and must be exercised in accordance with principles of justice, equity, and fair play. The court must consider the facts and circumstances of each case before deciding on rectification.
2. Validity of Share Transfer:
The petitioner was the recorded shareholder of 975 equity shares. However, in the annual return for the period up to June 27, 1985, the petitioner was shown as the shareholder for only 415 shares, with 560 shares transferred to respondent No. 2. The petitioner challenged this transfer as wrongful, illegal, and void, claiming it was unknown to her until February 1987.
3. Allegation of Mala Fides:
The petitioner alleged mala fides in the transfer of 560 shares. The respondent No. 2, through his attorney, claimed the transfer was part of a family settlement after the death of the petitioner's father and was executed with the petitioner's consent. However, the court found no sufficient evidence of this family settlement and noted the absence of any oath from the constituted attorney.
4. Authority of Constituted Attorney:
The power of attorney executed in 1975 authorized the petitioner's elder brother to manage her affairs, including the sale of shares. However, the court questioned the fairness and reasonableness of the transfer, noting the undue haste and lack of intimation to the petitioner. The court concluded that the transfer was not for the beneficial use or enjoyment of the petitioner, thus falling outside the scope of the power of attorney.
5. Delay and Acquiescence:
The respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed due to delay and acquiescence. The court, however, held that technicalities should not defeat the cause of justice. Even assuming some delay, it did not deprive the petitioner of her right to relief. The court emphasized that justice is supreme and must be served.
Conclusion:
The court ordered the rectification of the share register in favor of the petitioner and awarded costs of Rs. 2,000.
-
1989 (11) TMI 256
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 154 of the Companies Act regarding mandatory vs. directory requirements for closure of register of members.
2. Validity of closure of register of members and refusal to register share certificates.
3. Definition of "newspaper" under section 154 and compliance with publication requirements.
4. Impact of non-compliance with section 154 on refusal to register shares.
5. Compliance with section 108(1A)(ii)(a) requirements in Writ Petitions Nos. 3543 to 3545 of 1983.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involved writ appeals against an order of the Company Law Board under section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of section 154 of the Act to determine whether its requirements for closure of register of members are mandatory or directory. The learned judge held that the requirements are mandatory in nature, emphasizing the importance of publication in a newspaper for such closures.
2. The Company Law Board had directed the company to transfer share certificates to the petitioners, which led to the appeals. The refusal to register the share certificates was based on the company's claim of closure of registers. However, it was found that the closure did not meet the Act's requirements, rendering the refusal improper and invalid.
3. The definition of "newspaper" under section 154 was a crucial aspect of the case. The judgment highlighted the necessity of publication in a newspaper circulating in the district of the company's registered office. The court emphasized that the Daily Official List of Stock Exchange Limited did not qualify as a newspaper for the purpose of compliance with section 154, as it did not meet the circulation and news content criteria.
4. Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of section 154 had a direct impact on the refusal to register the shares. The failure to publish the closure notice in a proper newspaper with adequate circulation rendered the refusal to register the share certificates improper and unlawful.
5. The judgment also addressed the contention related to compliance with section 108(1A)(ii)(a) requirements in specific writ petitions. However, this contention was deemed irrelevant once the non-compliance with the mandatory closure requirements of section 154 was established, as it directly affected the validity of the refusal to register the shares.
In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed with costs, as the closure of registers did not satisfy the Act's requirements, leading to the improper refusal to register the shares. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of section 154 requirements and the significance of proper publication in a newspaper for closures of registers of members in a company.
-
1989 (11) TMI 255
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents could sell the properties of the company mortgaged with it without the permission of the company court.
2. Whether the sale by respondents to Zoravar Vanaspati Ltd. is void u/s 537 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Whether the respondents could take possession of the assets of the company during the pendency of the winding-up petition without the court's permission.
4. Whether the sale by the Corporation was effected in unusual haste and if the company had a right of redemption.
Summary:
Issue 1: Sale of Mortgaged Properties Without Court Permission
The court held that a Financial Corporation can enforce a mortgage u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, without approaching a civil court. The remedies available under sections 29 and 31 of the said Act are independent and entirely different. Section 32(10) of the said Act is not applicable to a case where a financial corporation exercises any of its options u/s 29. The Corporation was justified in taking over possession of the assets of the company during the pendency of the winding-up proceedings without the court's permission.
Issue 2: Validity of Sale u/s 537 of the Companies Act, 1956
The court held that section 537 of the Companies Act, 1956, is not applicable to the present case. The Corporation did not take the aid of the court for realizing its dues or enforcing its right. As it was already in possession and control of the assets of the company prior to the passing of the winding-up order, the Corporation was within its legal rights u/s 29 of the said Act to sell the assets of the company to Zoravar Vanaspati Limited without seeking the court's permission.
Issue 3: Taking Possession of Assets Without Court Permission
The court held that the Corporation had the right to take possession of the assets of the company u/s 29 of the said Act. The properties and effects of a company are deemed to be vested in the court on the date when the order of winding up is passed. The principle of relation back cannot apply to the vesting of the property of the company in the court. The Corporation took possession of the assets before the winding-up order was passed, and thus, it was within its rights.
Issue 4: Allegation of Hasty Sale and Right of Redemption
The court found no evidence of corruption, collusion, or fraud by the Corporation. The sale was duly advertised, and the price was considered reasonable. The Corporation and the Industrial Finance Corporation of India acted reasonably regarding the price and the mode of disposal of the assets. The official liquidator failed to show that the mortgaged properties could fetch a higher price than Rs. 90 lakhs. The court dismissed the application filed by the official liquidator, with no order as to costs.
The court also noted that if any amount is found due to any worker of the company, the Corporation shall pay it in accordance with law.
-
1989 (11) TMI 230
Issues: Application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain the respondent from enforcing or implementing impugned Election Rules exceeding statutory requirements.
Analysis:
The judgment by Mahinder Narain, J. addressed the application in Suit No. 1564 of 1988 concerning the respondent, a guarantee company under the Companies Act, and its Election Rules passed on August 4, 1988. The petitioner challenged rules 6(c), 7, and 8 of the Election Rules, arguing that they went beyond the provisions of section 176(6) of the Companies Act, which specifies the form of proxy set out in Schedule IX as the only requirement. The rules in question imposed additional conditions on proxies, such as invalidating proxies not in the printed form sent by the Council (rule 6(c)), issuing duplicate proxies for lost ones (rule 7), and revoking proxies (rule 8).
The judgment referenced the principle established in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, emphasizing that when a statute prescribes a specific method of action, deviation from that method is not permissible. It was held that the Election Rules contravened the Companies Act by imposing requirements beyond the statutory form of proxy. The judgment clarified that any action by the respondent conflicting with statutory provisions, whether in articles, rules, resolutions, or memoranda, would be void. The principle of ultra vires was invoked, asserting that the Companies Act prevails over any inconsistent actions by the respondent.
Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the significance of Section 9 of the Companies Act, reiterating that actions contrary to statutory terms are not legally sustainable. It emphasized that members of the respondent company were entitled to use proxies conforming to the form prescribed in Schedule IX at general meetings. The judgment concluded that the impugned Election Rules, exceeding statutory requirements, were ineffective, and the petitioner was granted an injunction restraining the respondent from enforcing rules 6(c), 7, and 8.
In the final disposition, the court clarified that the right of revocation did not necessitate using the printed form provided by the company. The application was disposed of, and the suit was scheduled for a hearing before the Deputy Registrar on January 22, 1990.
-
1989 (11) TMI 229
The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a petition regarding non-payment of dues by Didwana Chemicals Ltd. The court found that a bona fide dispute existed over the quality of goods supplied, and ruled that winding-up proceedings were not a substitute for a recovery suit. The petition was dismissed. (Case citation: 1989 (11) TMI 229 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN)
-
1989 (11) TMI 228
Issues:
1. Amalgamation of two companies under section 391 of the Companies Act.
2. Objection to the scheme of amalgamation based on violation of section 372 of the Companies Act.
3. Interpretation of section 372(2) regarding investment limits in other companies.
4. Application of section 372 to a private limited company becoming a deemed public limited company.
5. Remedies under section 374 for violation of section 372.
6. Precedents regarding violation of section 372 in relation to schemes of amalgamation.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to petitions for the amalgamation of two companies, Zenith Electro Systems P. Ltd. and Zenith Technologies Ltd., under section 391 of the Companies Act. The petitions seek to merge the companies, with consent letters from shareholders and creditors, and a favorable official liquidator's report. However, an objection is raised by the Central Government regarding the transferee company's violation of section 372 of the Companies Act, which limits investments in other companies. The objection is based on the transferee company's investment in shares of Zenith Computers Ltd., exceeding the prescribed limits.
The petitioners argue that section 372(2) does not apply to a private limited company unless it becomes a subsidiary of a public limited company. In this case, the transferee company transitioned to a deemed public limited company due to share allotments, leading to compliance with section 43A(1) of the Companies Act. Subsequently, the transferee company obtained a certificate for reconversion to a private limited company. The petitioners contend that the violation of section 372(2) was technical and no longer applicable to the present status of the transferee company.
Furthermore, the judgment highlights that remedies under section 374, including fines for violations of section 372, are available to address non-compliance. The court references precedents such as Sulekha Works Ltd. and Navjivan Mills Co. Ltd., emphasizing that past violations of section 372 do not necessarily impede amalgamation schemes. The court distinguishes the present case from situations where section 372 violations were directly linked to amalgamation schemes, asserting that the alleged violation by the transferee company is unrelated to the current merger proposal.
Ultimately, the court rules in favor of both petitions for amalgamation, dismissing the objection based on the past violation of section 372 by the transferee company. Costs are awarded to the official liquidator and the Regional Director in each petition. The judgment underscores that the alleged violation does not hinder the proposed amalgamation, as the relevant provisions no longer apply to the transferee company's current status.
-
1989 (11) TMI 227
Issues Involved:
1. Priority of income-tax claims in a company's liquidation.
2. Appropriation of sale proceeds by secured creditors.
3. Declaration of dividends to creditors.
4. Setting aside amounts for capital gains tax.
5. Claims of former employees for payment of dues.
6. Interpretation of mortgage rights and their impact on liquidation proceedings.
7. Applicability of section 476 and 529A of the Companies Act.
8. Applicability of section 178 of the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Priority of Income-Tax Claims in a Company's Liquidation:
The central question was whether the income-tax claim against a company in liquidation could be satisfied from the proceeds of the sale of the company's assets either as "costs, charges and expenses incurred in the winding up" under section 476 of the Companies Act or as an amount set aside under section 178 of the Income-tax Act in priority to claims under section 529A of the Companies Act. The court held that income-tax claims do not have priority over the claims of secured creditors and workmen under section 529A. It was emphasized that section 529A creates a new priority for workmen and secured creditors, and income-tax cannot be treated as winding-up costs to be paid from the mortgage right, which belongs to the secured creditor.
2. Appropriation of Sale Proceeds by Secured Creditors:
Canara Bank filed an application to appropriate Rs. 75,00,000 from the sale proceeds of Giovanola Binny Ltd.'s assets towards the amounts due to the bank. The court permitted this appropriation but clarified that if the balance amount was insufficient to meet the claims of the Income-tax Department and other claims, the order could be reopened.
3. Declaration of Dividends to Creditors:
The liquidator sought permission to declare a first dividend of 27 paise in the rupee to the creditors of Giovanola Binny Ltd. under sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act. The court sanctioned this declaration but directed Canara Bank to set apart Rs. 27,00,000 for capital gains tax provisionally, subject to further orders regarding the company's liability for capital gains tax.
4. Setting Aside Amounts for Capital Gains Tax:
The court directed Canara Bank to set apart Rs. 27,00,000 for capital gains tax based on the representation of the Income-tax Department's counsel. This reservation was subject to further orders regarding the liability of the company for capital gains tax.
5. Claims of Former Employees for Payment of Dues:
Former employees of Brunton and Company (Engineers) Ltd. (in liquidation) filed applications for payment of their claims under section 529A of the Companies Act. The court noted that the liquidator had set apart Rs. 25.59 lakhs for capital gains tax and held that this amount could not be utilized to pay creditors until issues relating to capital gains tax were settled.
6. Interpretation of Mortgage Rights and Their Impact on Liquidation Proceedings:
The court examined whether the mortgage right of the bank would be subject to the claim of the State for income-tax dues as costs of winding up. It was held that the mortgage right of the bank, being a secured creditor, takes precedence over other claims, including income-tax dues. The court relied on the analysis of Rashbehary Ghose and various judgments to conclude that secured creditors' rights cannot be overridden without their consent.
7. Applicability of Section 476 and 529A of the Companies Act:
Section 476 allows the court to order payment of costs, charges, and expenses incurred in winding up, but this does not include the mortgage right, which is an asset of the bank. Section 529A gives priority to workmen's dues and secured creditors' claims over other debts. The court emphasized that income-tax cannot be paid from the mortgage right, which does not belong to the company in liquidation.
8. Applicability of Section 178 of the Income-Tax Act:
The court noted that the assessing officer did not serve any notice under section 178(2) of the Income-tax Act to the liquidator. Section 178 is procedural and does not confer priority for income-tax dues. The Full Bench decision in Imperial Chit Funds Ltd. held that amounts set aside under section 178 are outside the winding-up proceedings. The court concluded that section 529A, being a subsequent provision, confers rights on secured creditors and workmen, overriding other laws.
Conclusion:
The applications were disposed of with directions to the Official Liquidator to declare further dividends to workmen and Canara Bank under section 529A of the Companies Act, after reimbursing the bank for amounts advanced and expenses incurred. The court held that income-tax claims do not have priority over secured creditors and workmen's dues.
-
1989 (11) TMI 226
Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of the share register under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Inherent power of the company to refuse registration of share transfer.
3. Interpretation of the words "or otherwise" in Section 111(2) of the Companies Act.
4. Necessity of making the transferor a party to the application under Section 155.
5. Compliance with Section 108 of the Companies Act regarding duly stamped transfer deeds.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Rectification of the Share Register under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The respondent applied for rectification of the share register of the appellant-company under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking to insert his name as a registered shareholder of certain shares transferred in his favor. The shares were fully paid-up, and the company had no lien over them. Despite the shares being duly lodged with the company along with the transfer deeds and requisite fees for registration being paid, the board of directors disapproved the registration. The respondent contended that under Article 39 of the articles of association, the company could not refuse registration of the transfer of fully paid-up shares with no lien. The single judge allowed the application, and the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the company's appeal, leading to the present appeal.
2. Inherent Power of the Company to Refuse Registration of Share Transfer:
The appellant argued that the company had a residuary inherent power to refuse registration of share transfers for the benefit of the company and its existing shareholders, derived from the words "or otherwise" in Article 42 of the articles of association and Section 111(2) of the Act. The court held that unless there is an impediment in the transfer of shares, a shareholder has the right to transfer his shares, and the transferee is entitled to have his name registered. The power to refuse registration must be specified in the Act or articles of association and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for collateral purposes. The court rejected the notion of an undeclared inherent power to refuse registration, emphasizing that such power must be traceable to the law or the articles of association.
3. Interpretation of the Words "or otherwise" in Section 111(2) of the Companies Act:
The appellant's submission that the words "or otherwise" in Section 111(2) of the Act recognized an inherent power to refuse registration was not accepted by the court. The court clarified that Section 111(2) only casts a duty to give notice of refusal to register the transfer of shares and provides for punishment in case of default. The words "or otherwise" were interpreted to mean that notice must be given irrespective of whether the refusal is under the articles of association or otherwise, including arbitrary or collateral refusals. The court concluded that the words "or otherwise" do not confer or recognize any inherent power to refuse registration.
4. Necessity of Making the Transferor a Party to the Application under Section 155:
The appellant contended that the application under Section 155 was not maintainable as the transferors were not made parties. The court upheld the High Court's decision that the transferor is not a necessary party unless the transfer is disputed by him. In this case, the transferors had knowledge of the proceedings and did not dispute the transfer. Therefore, the application was maintainable without making the transferors parties.
5. Compliance with Section 108 of the Companies Act regarding Duly Stamped Transfer Deeds:
The appellant argued that the company was entitled to verify whether the consideration for the transfer of shares was real and whether the transfer deeds were duly stamped under Section 108 of the Act. The High Court found that it was not proven that the respondent paid a higher price than stated in the transfer deeds. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this finding of fact, concluding that the transfer deeds were duly stamped, and the company could not refuse registration under Section 108.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment and confirming the respondent's right to have his name registered as a shareholder. The court emphasized that the power to refuse registration must be explicitly provided for and cannot be assumed as an inherent power. The appeal was dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000.
-
1989 (11) TMI 201
Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 81/75C.E. regarding exemption of sulphuric acid for fertiliser manufacturing.
- Disallowance of exemption by Assistant Collector for indirect use of sulphuric acid.
- Maintainability of cross-objections filed by respondents.
- Justification of exemption based on the use of sulphuric acid in the manufacturing process.
- Comparison with previous Tribunal orders for similar cases.
Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 81/75C.E.
The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 81/75C.E., which exempted sulphuric acid used in the manufacture of fertiliser from central excise duty. The respondents claimed this exemption, stating that the sulphuric acid was used for demineralisation of water, essential for producing steam for urea fertiliser manufacturing.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Exemption
The Assistant Collector disallowed the exemption, arguing that the sulphuric acid was not directly used in fertiliser manufacturing. However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) overturned this decision, citing a previous Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal. This led to the Revenue filing an appeal before the Tribunal.
Issue 3: Maintainability of Cross-objections
During the hearing, the appellant Collector argued against the maintainability of cross-objections filed by the respondents, stating they were time-barred and unnecessary since the impugned order was in favor of the respondents. The Tribunal dismissed the cross-objections based on these arguments.
Issue 4: Justification of Exemption
The appellant argued that the exemption required the Assistant Collector's satisfaction that sulphuric acid was used in fertiliser manufacturing, which was not the case here. In response, the respondents contended that sulphuric acid was essential for urea production, even if indirectly used. They referenced a previous Tribunal order supporting their position.
Issue 5: Comparison with Previous Tribunal Orders
The Tribunal compared the present case with a previous case involving the use of sulphuric acid in the manufacture of Sodium Hexa-Meta Phosphate (SHMP) for fertiliser production. The Tribunal had allowed the exemption in that case, similar to the current situation where sulphuric acid was used for demineralisation of water, crucial for urea fertiliser manufacturing. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding the exemption applicable based on the usage of sulphuric acid in the manufacturing process as established in the lower authorities' orders.
-
1989 (11) TMI 199
Issues:
Confiscation of imported goods, redemption fine, penalty under Customs Act, validity of import of poppy seeds under OGL, interpretation of Import Policy, past practice of releasing imported goods without penal action.
Confiscation of Imported Goods and Redemption Fine:
The appellants, manufacturers of Ayurvedic and Unani medicines, imported poppy seeds valued at Rs. 1,54,000 under OGL but failed to produce a valid Import Licence/CCP. The Collector ordered confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of a fine. The Tribunal held that import of consumer items of agricultural origin, like poppy seeds, was not permissible under OGL. The clarification by C.C.I. & E, New Delhi, stating the same was binding on Customs Authorities. The Tribunal rejected the argument that no Public Notice was issued, emphasizing the nature of imported goods over their intended use.
Penalty under Customs Act:
The appellants argued for leniency based on past practices of releasing similar goods without penalties. However, the Tribunal noted that the clear prohibition on importing poppy seeds was known to the appellants before shipment. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the import's validity was not a matter of intended use but the nature of the goods. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the penalty was excessive, distinguishing it from a similar case where a lower fine was imposed due to different circumstances.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, emphasizing the clear prohibition on importing poppy seeds under OGL due to their nature as consumer items of agricultural origin. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to import regulations and clarified that past practices of releasing goods without penalties did not apply in this case, given the clear prohibition on importing poppy seeds.
-
1989 (11) TMI 198
Issues:
Interpretation of central excise duty on regulators for fans below 107 cm sweep under Notification No. 46/84-C.E.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the assessment of central excise duty on regulators for fans below 107 cm sweep under Notification No. 46/84-C.E. The question was whether the regulators should attract duty at 15% ad valorem under Sr. No. 3 or at 7½ ad valorem under Sr. No. 2 sub-item No. (3)(a) of the said notification. The appellants claimed assessment under Sl. No. 2 sub-item No. (3)(a), while the authorities had assessed them at 15% ad valorem under Sr. No. 3. The appellants argued that ceiling fans inherently include regulators based on various judgments and tariff advice. They contended that regulators are an integral part of ceiling fans and are typically supplied together. The advocate relied on previous decisions and the Indian Standard Specification to support their argument.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the notification specifically excluded regulators from fans and should be interpreted strictly. They pointed out that the tariff entry was amended to include regulators separately, and the notification prescribed separate rates for electric fans and regulators. The respondent emphasized that the decisions relied upon by the appellants were from a period before the issuance of the notification in question and, therefore, not applicable to the current case.
Upon considering the arguments and relevant provisions, the Tribunal observed that the tariff item and the notification clearly indicated separate rates for electric fans and regulators. However, if regulators were sold along with electric fans, they should be assessed at the same rate as the fan. The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions and the Indian Standard Specification to establish that regulators are integral to electric fans. It was held that when regulators are sold with fans, they should be assessed together as they form an essential part of the fan. The separate rate of duty under Sr. No. 3 sub-item (3) of the notification applied only when regulators were sold without electric fans. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.
-
1989 (11) TMI 197
Issues:
Interpretation of central excise duty on regulators for fans below 107 cm sweep under Notification No. 46/84-C.E.
Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 46/84-C.E.:
The central issue in this case was whether regulators for fans below 107 cm sweep should attract duty at 15% ad valorem under Sr. No. 3 or at 7½ ad valorem under Sr. No. 2 sub-item No. (3)(a) of Notification No. 46/84-C.E. The appellants contended for assessment under Sl. No. 2 sub-item No. (3)(a), while the authorities had assessed them at 15% ad valorem under Sr. No. 3. The crux of the argument revolved around whether ceiling fans inherently include regulators, with the appellants citing various legal precedents and the Tariff Advice No. 2/71 to support their position.
2. Precedents and Legal Interpretation:
The learned advocate for the appellants relied on judgments of various courts and tribunals, emphasizing that regulators are an integral part of ceiling fans. They argued that the contemporaneous exposition of the law by the authorities issuing the notification should guide the interpretation. Furthermore, they highlighted the relevance of Indian Standard Specifications and ISI definitions in determining the classification of products. The advocate also stressed that notifications should be construed in favor of the assessee, citing judgments from the Bombay High Court to support this stance.
3. Interpretation of Tariff Items and Notification:
The Tribunal analyzed the relevant Tariff Item 33 and Notification No. 46/84-C.E. to determine the correct classification and duty rate for regulators sold with electric fans. Referring to previous decisions and the Tariff Advice, the Tribunal concluded that regulators are an indispensable part of electric fans. They emphasized that when regulators are supplied with fans, the regulator should be assessed at the same rate as the fan. However, if regulators are sold separately, they should be assessed under the specific tariff entry for regulators.
4. Decision and Rationale:
Based on the discussions and legal interpretations provided, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the separate rate of duty under Sr. No. 3 sub-item (3) of the Notification applies only when regulators are sold without electric fans. When regulators are sold along with electric fans, they are considered an integral part of the fan and should be assessed at the same rate as the fan. This decision was grounded in the understanding that regulators are essential components of electric fans and should be treated as such in the assessment of duty.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification and duty assessment of regulators for fans below 107 cm sweep under Notification No. 46/84-C.E., emphasizing the integral nature of regulators in electric fans and providing a clear guideline for their assessment based on whether they are sold separately or with the fan.
........
|
9911796707
